Who from,, page-4

We will never know this part, should Settlement proceed as per prayers of some:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Article by John Emmerig and Michael Legg

Proportionate Liability and Auditors

After the major cases of the 1980s against auditors, such as AWA and Adelaide Steamship, various reforms were added to the law so as to ensure audit firm continuity but still allow for litigation to deter contraventions and compensate investors: caps on liability and proportionate liability where there are multiple wrongdoers.

The incentive to sue "deep pockets" means that those reforms are now likely to be implicated in class actions. In particular, the MFS class action raised the issue of proportionate liability. In the MFS class action, KPMG indicated that they intended to rely in their defense upon a limitation of liability afforded under the proportionate liability legislation for apportionable claims which is now in force throughout Australia. Indeed, after Jacobson J reserved judgment on the motion for approval of the discontinuance, the auditors filed a defense which claims that each of the settling respondents, with the exception of the 15th respondent, Mr Zelinski, was a concurrent wrongdoer within the meaning of the proportionate liability regimes contained in the New South Wales, Queensland, and Victorian legislation.
--------------------------------------------------
With thanks to Jadel for this link.

Regards,